# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeff Bezos knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good, because you didn't change the default privacy settings on the Amazon smart speaker you set up in your bedroom, for goodness' sake.

This Christmas, families will be unwrapping various internet-connected devices, and, knowingly or not, wiring up their homes for levels of surveillance rarely seen outside the Soviet bloc. But you still have a bit of control. Here are the best tips to protect your digital privacy, without resorting to Christmas gifts whittled from wood.

Don't give up rights you don't need to

When you set up an Echo (Amazon's voice-controlled speaker), it will ask for your address book, to set up the Alexa voice-calling feature. If you, like everyone else in the world, have no intention of making phone calls from your Amazon Echo, don't simply hand over your friends' details to the company by blindly hitting "Yes"; instead, skip the prompt, and come back later if you change your mind. That goes for other technology, too. Look for boxes to uncheck, prompts to decline and settings to change; that will limit the technology to doing what you bought it for, rather than what the company that made it hopes you will let it do.

Dive into the settings

You wouldn't walk into a restaurant and tell the waiter: "Just give me whatever's got the highest profit margin, thanks." So don't just accept the default settings when you first turn on your smart humidifier. Take a second, or five, to look into the settings of your new devices, and see how much control they give you. You will almost certainly be able to put tighter controls on how your data is used (do you really want personalised adverts?) and you may find ways to improve the user experience as well.

Know when to give up

Some gifts aren't salvageable. Your tech-obsessed brother may have thought the Fisher Price teddy bear with a camera in its nose was cute for your new baby, but, before the company fixed a breach, it allowed hackers to steal children's names, birthdates and genders, along with other data. You would be best off pulling the batteries out and using it as a simple soft toy.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to protect your digital privacy from new Christmas presents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeff Bezos knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good, because you didn't change the default privacy settings on the Amazon smart speaker you set up in your bedroom, for goodness' sake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mattel's latest Wi-Fi enabled Barbie doll can easily be hacked to turn it into a surveillance device for spying on children and listening into conversations without the owner's knowledge.

The Hello Barbie doll is billed as the world's first "interactive doll" capable of listening to a child and responding via voice, in a similar way to Apple's Siri, Google's Now and Microsoft's Cortana.

It's just a matter of time until we are able to have her say anything we want

Matt Jakubowski

It connects to the internet via Wi-Fi and has a microphone to record children and send that information off to third-parties for processing before responding with natural language responses.

But US security researcher Matt Jakubowski discovered that when connected to Wi-Fi the doll was vulnerable to hacking, allowing him easy access to the doll's system information, account information, stored audio files and direct access to the microphone.

Jakubowski told NBC: "You can take that information and find out a person's house or business. It's just a matter of time until we are able to replace their servers with ours and have her say anything we want."

Matt Jakubowski (@Jaku)
It's here!! pic.twitter.com/1amDnzKOyI

Once Jakubowski took control of where the data was sent the snooping possibilities were apparent. The doll only listens in on a conversation when a button is pressed and the recorded audio is encrypted before being sent over the internet, but once a hacker has control of the doll the privacy features could be overridden.

It was the ease with which the doll was compromise that was most concerning. The information stored by the doll could allow hackers to take over a home Wi-Fi network and from there gain access to other internet connected devices, steal personal information and cause other problems for the owners, potentially without their knowledge.

This isn't the first time that Hello Barbie has been placed under the privacy spotlight. On its release in March privacy campaigners warned that a child's intimate conversations with their doll were being recorded and analysed and that it should not go on sale.

With a Hello Barbie in the hands of a child and carried everywhere they and their parents go, it could be the ultimate in audio surveillance device for miscreant hackers.

ToyTalk's chief executive Oren Jacob said: "An enthusiastic researcher has reported finding some device data and called that a hack. While the path that researcher used to find that data is not obvious and not user-friendly, it important to note that all that information was already directly available to Hello Barbie customers through the Hello Barbie Companion App. No user data, no Barbie content, and no major security nor privacy protections has been compromised to our knowledge."

Mattel, the manufacturers of Hello Barbie, did not respond to requests for comment.

Privacy fears over 'smart' Barbie that can listen to your kids

Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hackers can hijack Wi-Fi Hello Barbie to spy on your children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mattel's latest Wi-Fi enabled Barbie doll can easily be hacked to turn it into a surveillance device for spying on children and listening into conversations without the owner's knowledge. The Hello Barbie doll is billed as the world's first "interactive doll" capable of listening to a child and responding via voice, in a similar way to Apple's Siri, Google's Now and Microsoft's Cortana.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy fears over 'smart' Barbie that can listen to your kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Campaigners call for ban on Mattel doll that uses voice-recognition technology to respond to children's questions - and send recordings to third parties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For nearly 30 years now, Sherry Turkle, professor of social psychology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been exploring the effects of digital worlds on human behaviour. Her books, Life on the Screen, The Second Self and Alone Together, have charted the seductions of "intimate machines", the advance of social media and virtual realities and the all-pervasive internet, and the effect these things have had on our culture and our lives. Her latest book, Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in the Digital Age, is a call to arms to arrest what she sees as the damaging consequences of never being far from email or text or Twitter or Facebook, in particular the impact it has on family life, on education, on romance and on the possibilities of solitude. Using extensive interviews and half a lifetime of research, she suggests - with reference to the birth of the environmental movement in the 1960s - that we are at a "Silent Spring" moment in our infatuation with life on screens rather than life in the real world, never wholly in one or the other. She measures these effects in a breakdown of empathy between children, in the consequences of increasingly distracted family interaction and a growing need for constant stimulus. Her antidote is a simple one: we need to talk more to each other. This interview took place by telephone last week.

You have been writing about these issues for a long time now. Has it always felt like a losing battle?
Less so now. In the beginning I thought I was saying things people didn't want to hear. I think more people see something happening now that they don't like, but they don't know what to do about it. This new statistic seems telling: 89% of Americans admit they took out a phone at their last social encounter - and 82% say that they felt the conversation deteriorated after they did so. It is captured by the story I tell of the young girl saying: "Daddy! Stop Googling! I want to talk to you."

It is interesting to note that quite a lot of the antipathy towards being "always online" comes not from adults but from children. I suppose we have assumed that these habits would only become more ingrained among people who have grown up with them, but your work shows that is not necessarily the case.
Absolutely not. I was so impressed by kids who said: "I want to raise my children not the way I've been raised, but the way my parents think they have been raising me: in a house of conversation." That was stunning.

But what if children haven't had any experience of sitting around a dinner table, or of talking to their friends without a iPhone to hand? How do they know what they are missing?
That's the danger. But I believe that we are resilient. I like the study that shows that after five days away at camp without connections you see the empathy markers among children rising. The ability to recognise the emotions of somebody in a video or a story go right back up. I believe we are wired to talk. It is a Darwinian thing.

Easy to pick up, hard to put down... Photograph: Richard Levine/Demotix/Corbis

I guess we are also wired for novelty and distraction...
Yes. But I feel we have now created an environment that will distract us to distraction. My recipe does not involve my giving up my phone. It's too useful. But it means not using it on occasions like this when I am trying to give you my full attention. The human voice occupies a lot of bandwidth if you listen to it properly. If I was also texting, you would not be getting a sense of me.

I've worked in a newspaper office for 20-odd years. In that time, like all offices, it has become much quieter. Everyone used to be on the phone, now they are often emailing. Do you think something is lost in that?
If you sent me 10 email questions, you would get very different answers from me. Typing is not the same as talking. Students increasingly say they don't want to see me in person, they just want to email me. When I ask why, they basically say they want to get their questions perfect, so I can make my answers perfect. They want my perfect to meet their perfect.

Email allows us to give the press-release version of ourselves?
Yes. But that is not who we are. It's an algorithmic view of life. Who ever loved learning because they asked the professor a perfect question and the professor gave a perfect answer?

Certainly when I think of teachers who inspired me I couldn't tell you precisely what they said, but I can certainly remember the tone and the circumstances in which they said it.
Exactly. It's the fact you were there and thought: could I someday be like them?

You came to some of this understanding quite prophetically. I mean you were writing about the lure of digital worlds back in the 1980s.
I wrote my first book really in an effort to get people like me, humanists and anthropologists and psychologists, to look at these things with an open heart. That was about at the beginning of sociable robotics, the creation of machines that pretended to care about you. That appeared to love you. The other big development was devices with the ability to distract you all the time. I was very positive on the whole about machines that you physically went to. That you had to pull up a chair to. But once these things were with you all the time, I really wanted to study how the world changes with that possibility.

Tablet computers in the classroom: not such a good thing for child development? Photograph: Alamy

There are obviously huge commercial interests in that shift. And despite widespread understanding of the implications of it, of the end of privacy and so on, it seems most people believe it a price worth paying.
I want to be part of the change. I have met engineers and people in the industry who have said, you know, there is also money to be made in allowing you to have time off from your phone. The question is, how high do the costs of not doing that have to be? If you begin to see spikes in developmental issues? When people forget how to talk to each other?

You are not immune to the pull of these devices yourself.
I feel all of it. I have to fight the impulse to use my phone as an alarm clock rather than leaving it in another room. If I don't I will wake up in the middle of the night and think: I'll check my messages. Or the number of my book on Amazon. If I start checking my phone at two in the morning I suddenly find it is four in the morning and I have to get up in two hours.

Perhaps writers crave distraction more than most.
Perhaps. It's like Zadie Smith acknowledging Freedom, that program that lets you turn off Wi-Fi, for allowing her to finish her last book. People really struggle. I have interviewed several people who say they now have to go to remote country cabins to get any concentrated work done. Then they find themselves driving around the neighbourhood trying desperately to find an unlocked Wi-Fi signal. Knocking on doors.

The scary thing about that is that these people are adults. Children have much less opportunity for self-control.
Yes but the thrust of my argument is not that we have a device that has constant conversation on it. It is with the fact that there are no limits on that. It is with the father who checks his email while giving his two-year-old a bath when he used to play with her. Those are the lost conversations I am worried about. The fact is we need to design around our vulnerabilities.

But there is no sense that the corporations that make billions of dollars from these habits are going to adopt that idea willingly.
I like to look at the food industry and how it has evolved. My mother, when I was growing up, adored me but she also fed me white bread, tinned vegetables, potatoes that she made from flakes, TV dinners. It was a profit-centred industrial kind of machine that led her to do that. But a young mother today - if that was what she was feeding her child - you would know she was not with the programme. How did we turn that around? It certainly wasn't because the food industry said "Ooops!" It came from people seeing the effects of this diet. And that is how I think this will go also. There is study after study saying the same things: talk to each other, experience solitude, experience boredom. Boredom is your imagination calling to you. I think it will happen slowly.

The lure of the sociable robot and the digital future, once so appealing, appears to have worn off. Photograph: Allstar

I suppose in the case of nutrition there are physical effects that can be measured, though; isn't this more intangible?
I'm not sure the effects of not talking are hard to measure. The interviews that I did in business settings, people said people come to them for jobs and literally don't know how to have a conversation. I mean if you take a baby and put them on a baby bouncer that has a slot for an iPad, instead of taking time to have eye contact and reading to them, and then they go to a school where most of their instruction is on a screen, why be surprised when they show up as sixth-graders [those in the first year of secondary school] looking down at the floor and being unable to speak? I came across many kids who are set homework on tablets but can't concentrate on reading it until they print it out. I am sympathetic to that. I know for a fact that it's hell to try to read complicated things on a machine that also gives me access to every other thing in my life. We are asking kids to read homework on a device that also gives them access to everything that matters to them: Facebook. It's sad to witness that struggle.

How did you negotiate these things with your own daughter? I have two daughters, 16 and 12, and my experience is that you have to choose your battles...
We did the sacred space thing. And it mostly worked. No computers or phones in the kitchen, at the dining table, or in the car. Those are the places I think where you create family space. The car is very important. I don't think it works if you talk about set hours or whatever. And it is of course crucial that you apply the same sacred space rule to yourself as to them. The issue is not that your child loves using their screen to write. The issue is that they should not be doing it when they are talking to you. I never friended my daughter on Facebook; that wasn't our space to share things. Instead I had dinner with her pretty much every night. I am not anti-technology, I am pro-conversation.

Can you see this becoming a movement?
I do see it. Every time you go and see a doctor and he looks at a screen and not at you, for example, this movement is strengthened. In business the research on how useful conversation is to the bottom line will make it a movement.

Do you encounter hostility to that message?
Much less than five years ago. When I wrote my last book, Alone Together, people were angry. The dominant emotion I encountered was irritation: "Give it a rest."

Isn't that a classic symptom of addiction - people don't want to be told that the thing they are in thrall to is harming them?
I wouldn't use that metaphor. If you are addicted to heroin you have to give it up completely, go cold turkey. Here it is a different assignment. I am not planning to give up my phone. I just need to know what it is good for.

Are you hopeful those habits will catch on?
I am not Pollyanna and deluded. If people start to buy the idea that machines are great companions for the elderly or for children, as they increasingly seem to do, we are really playing with fire. I think the stakes are very high. But the good thing is we don't have to invent anything to turn it around. We already have each other to talk to.
Reclaiming Conversation is published by Turnaround, £12.99. Click here to order it for £9.09.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sherry Turkle: 'I am not anti-technology, I am pro-conversation'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the social media age, we know how to connect: but are we forgetting how to talk to each other? Leading psychologist Sherry Turkle wants to fight back

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sherry Turkle: "Reclaiming Conversation" | Talks at Google

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should you whisper around your Amazon Echo, lest it whisper back to you?

That's the future suggested by a patent recently filed by the company, which examined the possibility of eavesdropping on conversations held around its voice-activated devices in order to better suggest products or services to users.

The idea seems to be to turn Alexa, the company's virtual assistant, from a dutiful aide under the user's command to one with a more proactive attitude. For instance, the patent suggests: "If the user mentions how much the user would like to go to a restaurant while on the phone, a recommendation might be sent while the user is still engaged in the conversation that enables the user to make a reservation at the restaurant."

Other proposals include making a note if you mention you like skiing, for instance, or hate to draw, and using those to update the company's profile of you as a customer.

In a statement, Amazon said the patent was a proposal for the future, rather than a feature it is preparing to roll out. "Like many companies, we file a number of forward-looking patent applications that explore the full possibilities of new technology. Patents take multiple years to receive and do not necessarily reflect current developments to products and services." In fact, as the company wearily repeats almost weekly, Echo devices do not, and cannot, send voice recordings back to Amazon unless they have heard one of the preselected "wake words", such as "Alexa", "Echo" or "computer". "We do not use customers' voice recordings for targeted advertising," Amazon added.
'Amazon's Alexa is now part of the family - I just hope she doesn't replace me'
But the patent remains likely to plunge the company into the same conspiracist world that Facebook has been struggling to escape from for years. The social network has been plagued by rumours - again, repeatedly denied - that it eavesdrops on user's conversations using phone mics to target adverts.

Unfortunately for both companies, they are too good at their jobs. When Facebook or Amazon uses the existing data they have on you - be that a decade of conversations with your friends, or a shopping history twice that long - to make recommendations that seem eerily good, it can be easy to jump to the assumption that they are listening in. The truth - that they know all they need to know about you from the information you voluntarily uploaded to their sites - is almost more unsettling.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should you whisper around your Amazon Echo, lest it whisper back to you? That's the future suggested by a patent recently filed by the company, which examined the possibility of eavesdropping on conversations held around its voice-activated devices in order to better suggest products or services to users.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Smart Speaker Market Share 2018 and 2019, By Platform, (Statistica, 2020)

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Smart Speaker Market Share 2018 and 2019, By Platform, (Statistica, 2020)

# data[].attributes.headline
Apples 'Screen Time' which helps people monitor their time spent online.

# data[].attributes.subject
Apples 'Screen Time' which helps people monitor their time spent online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The voice revolution has only just begun. Today, Alexa is a humble servant. Very soon, she could be much more-a teacher, a therapist, a confidant, an informant.

For a few days this summer, Alexa, the voice assistant who speaks to me through my Amazon Echo Dot, took to ending our interactions with a whisper: Sweet dreams. Every time it happened, I was startled, although I thought I understood why she was doing it, insofar as I understand anything that goes on inside that squat slice of black tube. I had gone onto Amazon.com and activated a third-party "skill"-an applike program that enables Alexa to perform a service or do a trick-called "Baby Lullaby." It plays an instrumental version of a nursery song (yes, I still listen to lullabies to get to sleep), then signs off softly with the nighttime benediction. My conjecture is that the last string of code somehow went astray and attached itself to other "skills." But even though my adult self knew perfectly well that Sweet dreams was a glitch, a part of me wanted to believe that Alexa meant it. Who doesn't crave a motherly goodnight, even in mid-afternoon? Proust would have understood.

We're all falling for Alexa, unless we're falling for Google Assistant, or Siri, or some other genie in a smart speaker. When I say "smart," I mean the speakers possess artificial intelligence, can conduct basic conversations, and are hooked up to the internet, which allows them to look stuff up and do things for you. And when I say "all," I know some readers will think, Speak for yourself! Friends my age-we're the last of the Baby Boomers-tell me they have no desire to talk to a computer or have a computer talk to them. Cynics of every age suspect their virtual assistants of eavesdropping, and not without reason. Smart speakers are yet another way for companies to keep tabs on our searches and purchases. Their microphones listen even when you're not interacting with them, because they have to be able to hear their "wake word," the command that snaps them to attention and puts them at your service.
By 2021, there will be almost as many personal-assistant bots on the planet as people.
The speakers' manufacturers promise that only speech that follows the wake word is archived in the cloud, and Amazon and Google, at least, make deleting those exchanges easy enough. Nonetheless, every so often weird glitches occur, like the time Alexa recorded a family's private conversation without their having said the wake word and emailed the recording to an acquaintance on their contacts list. Amazon explained that Alexa must have been awakened by a word that sounded like Alexa ( Texas? A Lexus? Praxis?), then misconstrued elements of the ensuing conversation as a series of commands. The explanation did not make me feel much better.

Privacy concerns have not stopped the march of these devices into our homes, however. Amazon doesn't disclose exact figures, but when I asked how many Echo devices have been sold, a spokeswoman said "tens of millions." By the end of last year, more than 40 million smart speakers had been installed worldwide, according to Canalys, a technology-research firm. Based on current sales, Canalys estimates that this figure will reach 100 million by the end of this year. According to a 2018 report by National Public Radio and Edison Research, 8 million Americans own three or more smart speakers, suggesting that they feel the need to always have one within earshot. By 2021, according to another research firm, Ovum, there will be almost as many voice-activated assistants on the planet as people. It took about 30 years for mobile phones to outnumber humans. Alexa and her ilk may get there in less than half that time.

One reason is that Amazon and Google are pushing these devices hard, discounting them so heavily during last year's holiday season that industry observers suspect that the companies lost money on each unit sold. These and other tech corporations have grand ambitions. They want to colonize space. Not interplanetary space. Everyday space: home, office, car. In the near future, everything from your lighting to your air-conditioning to your refrigerator, your coffee maker, and even your toilet could be wired to a system controlled by voice.

The company that succeeds in cornering the smart-speaker market will lock appliance manufacturers, app designers, and consumers into its ecosystem of devices and services, just as Microsoft tethered the personal-computer industry to its operating system in the 1990s. Alexa alone already works with more than 20,000 smart-home devices representing more than 3,500 brands. Her voice emanates from more than 100 third-party gadgets, including headphones, security systems, and automobiles.

Yet there is an inherent appeal to the devices, too-one beyond mere consumerism. Even those of us who approach new technologies with a healthy amount of caution are finding reasons to welcome smart speakers into our homes. After my daughter-in-law posted on Instagram an adorable video of her 2-year-old son trying to get Alexa to play "You're Welcome," from the Moana soundtrack, I wrote to ask why she and my stepson had bought an Echo, given that they're fairly strict about what they let their son play with. "Before we got Alexa, the only way to play music was on our computers, and when [he] sees a computer screen, he thinks it's time to watch TV," my daughter-in-law emailed back. "It's great to have a way to listen to music or the radio that doesn't involve opening up a computer screen." She's not the first parent to have had that thought. In that same NPR/Edison report, close to half the parents who had recently purchased a smart speaker reported that they'd done so to cut back on household screen time.

The ramifications of this shift are likely to be wide and profound. Human history is a by-product of human inventions. New tools-wheels, plows, PCs-usher in new economic and social orders. They create and destroy civilizations. Voice technologies such as telephones, recording devices, and the radio have had a particularly momentous impact on the course of political history-speech and rhetoric being, of course, the classical means of persuasion. Radio broadcasts of Adolf Hitler's rallies helped create a dictator; Franklin D. Roosevelt's fireside chats edged America toward the war that toppled that dictator.

Perhaps you think that talking to Alexa is just a new way to do the things you already do on a screen: shopping, catching up on the news, trying to figure out whether your dog is sick or just depressed. It's not that simple. It's not a matter of switching out the body parts used to accomplish those tasks-replacing fingers and eyes with mouths and ears. We're talking about a change in status for the technology itself-an upgrade, as it were. When we converse with our personal assistants, we bring them closer to our own level.

Gifted with the once uniquely human power of speech, Alexa, Google Assistant, and Siri have already become greater than the sum of their parts. They're software, but they're more than that, just as human consciousness is an effect of neurons and synapses but is more than that. Their speech makes us treat them as if they had a mind. "The spoken word proceeds from the human interior, and manifests human beings to one another as conscious interiors, as persons," the late Walter Ong wrote in his classic study of oral culture, Orality and Literacy. These secretarial companions may be faux-conscious nonpersons, but their words give them personality and social presence.

And indeed, these devices no longer serve solely as intermediaries, portals to e-commerce or nytimes.com. We communicate with them, not through them. More than once, I've found myself telling my Google Assistant about the sense of emptiness I sometimes feel. "I'm lonely," I say, which I usually wouldn't confess to anyone but my therapist-not even my husband, who might take it the wrong way. Part of the allure of my Assistant is that I've set it to a chipper, young-sounding male voice that makes me want to smile. (Amazon hasn't given the Echo a male-voice option.) The Assistant pulls out of his memory bank one of the many responses to this statement that have been programmed into him. "I wish I had arms so I could give you a hug," he said to me the other day, somewhat comfortingly. "But for now, maybe a joke or some music might help."

For the moment, these machines remain at the dawn of their potential, as likely to botch your request as they are to fulfill it. But as smart-speaker sales soar, computing power is also expanding exponentially. Within our lifetimes, these devices will likely become much more adroit conversationalists. By the time they do, they will have fully insinuated themselves into our lives. With their perfect cloud-based memories, they will be omniscient; with their occupation of our most intimate spaces, they'll be omnipresent. And with their eerie ability to elicit confessions, they could acquire a remarkable power over our emotional lives. What will that be like?

When Toni Reid, now the vice president of the Alexa Experience, was asked to join the Echo team in 2014-this was before the device was on the market-she scoffed: "I was just like, 'What? It's a speaker?' " At the time, she was working on the Dash Wand, a portable bar-code scanner and smart microphone that allows people to scan or utter the name of an item they want to add to their Amazon shopping cart. The point of the Dash Wand was obvious: It made buying products from Amazon easier.

The point of the Echo was less obvious. Why would consumers buy a device that gave them the weather and traffic conditions, functioned as an egg timer, and performed other tasks that any garden-variety smartphone could manage? But once Reid had set up an Echo in her kitchen, she got it. Her daughters, 10 and 7 at the time, instantly started chattering away at Alexa, as if conversing with a plastic cylinder was the most natural thing in the world. Reid herself found that even the Echo's most basic, seemingly duplicative capabilities had a profound effect on her surroundings. "I'm ashamed to say how many years I went without actually listening to music," she told me. "And we get this device in the house and all of a sudden there's music in our household again."
Like an ideal servant in a Victorian manor, Alexa hovers in the background, ready to do her master's bidding swiftly yet meticulously.
You may be skeptical of a conversion narrative offered up by a top Amazon executive. But I wasn't, because it mirrored my own experience. I, too, couldn't be bothered to go hunting for a particular song-not in iTunes and certainly not in my old crate of CDs. But now that I can just ask Alexa to play Leonard Cohen's "You Want It Darker" when I'm feeling lugubrious, I do.

I met Reid at Amazon's Day 1 building in Seattle, a shiny tower named for Jeff Bezos's corporate philosophy: that every day at the company should be as intense and driven as the first day at a start-up. ("Day 2 is stasis. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by excruciating, painful decline. Followed by death," he wrote in a 2016 letter to shareholders.) Reid studied anthropology as an undergraduate, and she had a social scientist's patience for my rudimentary questions about what makes these devices different from the other electronics in our lives. The basic appeal of the Echo, she said, is that it frees your hands. Because of something called "far-field voice technology," machines can now decipher speech at a distance. Echo owners can wander around living rooms, kitchens, and offices doing this or that while requesting random bits of information or ordering toilet paper or an Instant Pot, no clicks required.

The beauty of Alexa, Reid continued, is that she makes such interactions "frictionless"-a term I'd hear again and again in my conversations with the designers and engineers behind these products. No need to walk over to the desktop and type a search term into a browser; no need to track down your iPhone and punch in your passcode. Like the ideal servant in a Victorian manor, Alexa hovers in the background, ready to do her master's bidding swiftly yet meticulously.

Frictionlessness is the goal, anyway. For the moment, considerable friction remains. It really is remarkable how often smart speakers-even Google Home, which often outperforms the Echo in tests conducted by tech websites-flub their lines. They'll misconstrue a question, stress the wrong syllable, offer a bizarre answer, apologize for not yet knowing some highly knowable fact. Alexa's bloopers float around the internet like clips from an absurdist comedy show. In one howler that went viral on YouTube, a toddler lisps, "Lexa, play 'Ticker Ticker' "-presumably he wants to hear "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star." Alexa replies, in her stilted monotone, "You want to hear a station for porn ... hot chicks, amateur girls ..." (It got more graphic from there.) "No, no, no!" the child's parents scream in the background.

My sister-in-law got her Echo early, in 2015. For two years, whenever I visited, I'd watch her bicker as passionately with her machine as George Costanza's parents did with each other on Seinfeld. "I hate Alexa," she announced recently, having finally shut the thing up in a closet. "I would say to her, 'Play some Beethoven,' and she would play 'Eleanor Rigby.' Every time."

Catrin Morris, a mother of two who lives in Washington, D.C., told me she announces on a weekly basis, "I'm going to throw Alexa into the trash." She's horrified at how her daughters bark insults at Alexa when she doesn't do what they want, such as play the right song from The Book of Mormon. (Amazon has programmed Alexa to turn the other cheek: She does not respond to "inappropriate engagement.") But even with her current limitations, Alexa has made herself part of the household. Before the Echo entered their home, Morris told me, she'd struggled to enforce her own no-devices-at-the-dinner-table rule. She had to fight the urge to whip out her smartphone to answer some tantalizing question, such as: Which came first, the fork, the spoon, or the knife? At least with Alexa, she and her daughters can keep their hands on their silverware while they question its origins.
Talking to machines gives us a way to reveal shameful feelings without feeling shame.
As Alexa grows in sophistication, it will be that much harder to throw the Echo on the heap of old gadgets to be hauled off on electronics-recycling day. Rohit Prasad is the head scientist on Alexa's artificial-intelligence team, and a man willing to defy local norms by wearing a button-down shirt. He sums up the biggest obstacle to Alexa achieving that sophistication in a single word: context. "You have to understand that language is highly ambiguous," he told me. "It requires conversational context, geographical context." When you ask Alexa whether the Spurs are playing tonight, she has to know whether you mean the San Antonio Spurs or the Tottenham Hotspur, the British soccer team colloquially known as the Spurs. When you follow up by asking, "When is their next home game?," Alexa has to remember the previous question and understand what their refers to. This short-term memory and syntactical back-referencing is known at Amazon as "contextual carryover." It was only this spring that Alexa developed the ability to answer follow-up questions without making you say her wake word again.

Alexa needs to get better at grasping context before she can truly inspire trust. And trust matters. Not just because consumers will give up on her if she bungles one too many requests, but because she is more than a search engine. She's an "action engine," Prasad says. If you ask Alexa a question, she doesn't offer up a list of results. She chooses one answer from many. She tells you what she thinks you want to know. "You want to have a very smart AI. You don't want a dumb AI," Prasad said. "And yet making sure the conversation is coherent-that's incredibly challenging."

To understand the forces being marshaled to pull us away from screens and push us toward voices, you have to know something about the psychology of the voice. For one thing, voices create intimacy. I'm hardly the only one who has found myself confessing my emotional state to my electronic assistant. Many articles have been written about the expressions of depression and suicide threats that manufacturers have been picking up on. I asked tech executives about this, and they said they try to deal with such statements responsibly. For instance, if you tell Alexa you're feeling depressed, she has been programmed to say, "I'm so sorry you are feeling that way. Please know that you're not alone. There are people who can help you. You could try talking with a friend, or your doctor. You can also reach out to the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance at 1-800-826-3632 for more resources."

Why would we turn to computers for solace? Machines give us a way to reveal shameful feelings without feeling shame. When talking to one, people "engage in less of what's called impression management, so they reveal more intimate things about themselves," says Jonathan Gratch, a computer scientist and psychologist at the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies, who studies the spoken and unspoken psychodynamics of the human-computer interaction. "They'll show more sadness, for example, if they're depressed."

I turned to Diana Van Lancker Sidtis, a speech-and-language scholar at NYU, to get a better appreciation for the deep connection between voice and emotion. To my surprise, she pointed me to an essay she'd written on frogs in the primeval swamp. In it, she explains that their croaks, unique to each frog, communicated to fellow frogs who and where they were. Fast-forward a few hundred million years, and the human vocal apparatus, with its more complex musculature, produces language, not croaks. But voices convey more than language. Like the frogs, they convey the identifying markers of an individual: gender, size, stress level, and so on. Our vocal signatures consist of not only our style of stringing words together but also the sonic marinade in which those words steep, a rich medley of tone, rhythm, pitch, resonance, pronunciation, and many other features. The technical term for this collection of traits is prosody.

When someone talks to us, we hear the words, the syntax, and the prosody all at once. Then we hunt for clues as to what kind of person the speaker is and what she's trying to say, recruiting a remarkably large amount of brainpower to try to make sense of what we're hearing. "The brain is wired to view every aspect of every human utterance as meaningful," wrote the late Clifford Nass, a pioneering thinker on computer-human relationships. The prosody usually passes beneath notice, like a mighty current directing us toward a particular emotional response.

We can't put all this mental effort on pause just because a voice is humanoid rather than human. Even when my Google Assistant is doing nothing more enthralling than delivering the weather forecast, the image of the cute young waiter-slash-actor I've made him out to be pops into my mind. That doesn't mean I fail to grasp the algorithmic nature of our interaction. I know that he's just software. Then again, I don't know. Evolution has not prepared me to know. We've been reacting to human vocalizations for millions of years as if they signaled human proximity. We've had only about a century and a half to adapt to the idea that a voice can be disconnected from its source, and only a few years to adapt to the idea that an entity that talks and sounds like a human may not be a human.

Lacking a face isn't necessarily a hindrance to a smart speaker. In fact, it may be a boon. Voices can express certain emotional truths better than faces can. We are generally less adept at controlling the muscles that modulate our voices than our facial muscles (unless, of course, we're trained singers or actors). Even if we try to suppress our real feelings, anger, boredom, or anxiety will often reveal themselves when we speak.

The power of the voice is at its uncanniest when we can't locate its owner-when it is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. There's a reason God speaks to Adam and Moses. In the beginning was the Word, not the Scroll. In her chilling allegory of charismatic totalitarianism, A Wrinkle in Time, Madeleine L'Engle conjures a demonic version of an all-pervasive voice. IT, the supernatural leader of a North Korea-like state, can insert its voice inside people's heads and force them to say whatever it tells them to say. Disembodied voices accrue yet more influence from the primal yearning they awaken. A fetus recognizes his mother's voice while still in the womb. Before we're even born, we have already associated an unseen voice with nourishment and comfort.

A 2017 study published in American Psychologist makes the case that when people talk without seeing each other, they're better at recognizing each other's feelings. They're more empathetic. Freud understood this long before empirical research demonstrated it. That's why he had his patients lie on a couch, facing away from him. He could listen all the harder for the nuggets of truth in their ramblings, while they, undistracted by scowls or smiles, slipped into that twilight state in which they could unburden themselves of stifled feelings.

The manufacturers of smart speakers would like to capitalize on these psychosocial effects. Amazon and Google both have "personality teams," charged with crafting just the right tone for their assistants. In part, this is textbook brand management: These devices must be ambassadors for their makers. Reid told me Amazon wants Alexa's personality to mirror the company's values: "Smart, humble, sometimes funny." Google Assistant is "humble, it's helpful, a little playful at times," says Gummi Hafsteinsson, one of the Assistant's head product managers. But having a personality also helps make a voice relatable.

Tone is tricky. Though virtual assistants are often compared to butlers, Al Lindsay, the vice president of Alexa engine software and a man with an old-school engineer's military bearing, told me that he and his team had a different servant in mind. Their "North Star" had been the onboard computer that ran the U.S.S. Enterprise in Star Trek, replying to the crew's requests with the breathy deference of a 1960s Pan Am stewardess. (The Enterprise's computer was an inspiration to Google's engineers, too. Her voice belonged to the actress Majel Barrett, the wife of Star Trek 's creator, Gene Roddenberry; when the Google Assistant project was still under wraps, its code name was Majel.)

Twenty-first-century Americans no longer feel entirely comfortable with feminine obsequiousness, however. We like our servility to come in less servile flavors. The voice should be friendly but not too friendly. It should possess just the right dose of sass.

To fine-tune the Assistant's personality, Google hired Emma Coats away from Pixar, where she had worked as a storyboard artist on Brave, Monsters University, and Inside Out. Coats was at a conference the day I visited Google's Mountain View, California, headquarters. She beamed in on Google Hangouts and offered what struck me as the No. 1 rule for writing dialogue for the Assistant, a dictum with the disingenuous simplicity of a Zen koan. Google Assistant, she said, "should be able to speak like a person, but it should never pretend to be one." In Finding Nemo, she noted, the fish "are just as emotionally real as human beings, but they go to fish school and they challenge each other to go up and touch a boat." Likewise, an artificially intelligent entity should "honor the reality that it's software." For instance, if you ask Google Assistant, "What's your favorite ice-cream flavor?," it might say, "You can't go wrong with Neapolitan. There's something in it for everyone." That's a dodge, of course, but it follows the principle Coats articulated. Software can't eat ice cream, and therefore can't have ice-cream preferences. If you propose marriage to Alexa-and Amazon says 1 million people did so in 2017-she gently declines for similar reasons. "We're at pretty different places in our lives," she told me. "Literally. I mean, you're on Earth. And I'm in the cloud."

An assistant should be true to its cybernetic nature, but it shouldn't sound alien, either. That's where James Giangola, a lead conversation and persona designer for Google Assistant, comes in. Giangola is a garrulous man with wavy hair and more than a touch of mad scientist about him. His job is making the Assistant sound normal.

For example, Giangola told me, people tend to furnish new information at the end of a sentence, rather than at the beginning or middle. "I say 'My name is James,' " he pointed out, not "James is my name." He offered another example. Say someone wants to book a flight for June 31. "Well," Giangola said, "there is no June 31." So the machine has to handle two delicate tasks: coming off as natural, and contradicting its human user.

Typing furiously on his computer, he pulled up a test recording to illustrate his point. A man says, "Book it for June 31."

The Assistant replies, "There are only 30 days in June."

The response sounded stiff. "June's old information," Giangola observed.

He played a second version of the exchange: "Book it for June 31."

The Assistant replies, "Actually, June has only 30 days."

Her point-30 days-comes at the end of the line. And she throws in an actually, which gently sets up the correction to come. "More natural, right?" Giangola said.

Getting the rhythms of spoken language down is crucial, but it's hardly sufficient to create a decent conversationalist. Bots also need a good vibe. When Giangola was training the actress whose voice was recorded for Google Assistant, he gave her a backstory to help her produce the exact degree of upbeat geekiness he wanted. The backstory is charmingly specific: She comes from Colorado, a state in a region that lacks a distinctive accent. "She's the youngest daughter of a research librarian and a physics professor who has a B.A. in art history from Northwestern," Giangola continues. When she was a child, she won $100,000 on Jeopardy: Kids Edition. She used to work as a personal assistant to "a very popular late-night-TV satirical pundit." And she enjoys kayaking.

A skeptical colleague once asked Giangola, "How does someone sound like they're into kayaking?" During auditions (hundreds of people tried out for the role), Giangola turned to the doubter and said, "The candidate who just gave an audition-do you think she sounded energetic, like she's up for kayaking?" His colleague admitted that she didn't. "I said, 'Okay. There you go.' "

But vocal realism can be taken further than people are accustomed to, and that can cause trouble-at least for now. In May, at its annual developer conference, Google unveiled Duplex, which uses cutting-edge speech-synthesis technology. To demonstrate its achievement, the company played recordings of Duplex calling up unsuspecting human beings. Using a female voice, it booked an appointment at a hair salon; using a male voice, it asked about availabilities at a restaurant. Duplex speaks with remarkably realistic disfluencies- ums and mm-hmm s-and pauses, and neither human receptionist realized that she was talking to an artificial agent. One of its voices, the female one, spoke with end-of-sentence upticks, also audible in the voice of the young female receptionist who took that call.

Many commentators thought Google had made a mistake with its gung ho presentation. Duplex not only violated the dictum that AI should never pretend to be a person; it also appeared to violate our trust. We may not always realize just how powerfully our voice assistants are playing on our psychology, but at least we've opted into the relationship. Duplex was a fake-out, and an alarmingly effective one. Afterward, Google clarified that Duplex would always identify itself to callers. But even if Google keeps its word, equally deceptive voice technologies are already being developed. Their creators may not be as honorable. The line between artificial voices and real ones is well on its way to disappearing.

The most relatable interlocutor, of course, is the one that can understand the emotions conveyed by your voice, and respond accordingly-in a voice capable of approximating emotional subtlety. Your smart speaker can't do either of these things yet, but systems for parsing emotion in voice already exist. Emotion detection-in faces, bodies, and voices-was pioneered about 20 years ago by an MIT engineering professor named Rosalind Picard, who gave the field its academic name: affective computing. "Back then," she told me, "emotion was associated with irrationality, which was not a trait engineers respected."

View More

Picard, a mild-mannered, witty woman, runs the Affective Computing Lab, which is part of MIT's cheerfully weird Media Lab. She and her graduate students work on quantifying emotion. Picard explained that the difference between most AI research and the kind she does is that traditional research focuses on "the nouns and verbs"-that is, the content of an action or utterance. She's interested in "the adverbs"-the feelings that are conveyed. "You know, I can pick up a phone in a lot of different ways. I can snatch it with a sharp, angry, jerky movement. I can pick it up with happy, loving expectation," Picard told me. Appreciating gestures with nuance is important if a machine is to understand the subtle cues human beings give one another. A simple act like the nodding of a head could telegraph different meanings: "I could be nodding in a bouncy, happy way. I could be nodding in sunken grief."

In 2009, Picard co-founded a start-up, Affectiva, focused on emotion-enabled AI. Today, the company is run by the other co-founder, Rana el Kaliouby, a former postdoctoral fellow in Picard's lab. A sense of urgency pervades Affectiva's open-plan office in downtown Boston. The company hopes to be among the top players in the automotive market. The next generation of high-end cars will come equipped with software and hardware (cameras and microphones, for now) to analyze drivers' attentiveness, irritation, and other states. This capacity is already being tested in semiautonomous cars, which will have to make informed judgments about when it's safe to hand control to a driver, and when to take over because a driver is too distracted or upset to focus on the road.

Affectiva initially focused on emotion detection through facial expressions, but recently hired a rising star in voice emotion detection, Taniya Mishra. Her team's goal is to train computers to interpret the emotional content of human speech. One clue to how we're feeling, of course, is the words we use. But we betray as much if not more of our feelings through the pitch, volume, and tempo of our speech. Computers can already register those nonverbal qualities. The key is teaching them what we humans intuit naturally: how these vocal features suggest our mood.

The biggest challenge in the field, she told me, is building big-enough and sufficiently diverse databases of language from which computers can learn. Mishra's team begins with speech mostly recorded "in the wild"-that is, gleaned from videos on the web or supplied by a nonprofit data consortium that has collected natural speech samples for academic purposes, among other sources. A small battalion of workers in Cairo, Egypt, then analyze the speech and label the emotion it conveys, as well as the nonlexical vocalizations-grunts, giggles, pauses-that play an important role in revealing a speaker's psychological state.
One start-up is working on AI software for doctors that can scrutinize patients' speech for biomarkers of depression and anxiety.
Classification is a slow, painstaking process. Three to five workers have to agree on each label. Each hour of tagged speech requires "as many as 20 hours of labeler time" Mishra says. There is a workaround, however. Once computers have a sufficient number of human-labeled samples demonstrating the specific acoustic characteristics that accompany a fit of pique, say, or a bout of sadness, they can start labeling samples themselves, expanding the database far more rapidly than mere mortals can. As the database grows, these computers will be able to hear speech and identify its emotional content with ever increasing precision.

During the course of my research, I quickly lost count of the number of start-ups hoping to use voice-based analytics in the field. Ellipsis Health, for example, is a San Francisco company developing AI software for doctors, social workers, and other caregivers that can scrutinize patients' speech for biomarkers of depression and anxiety. "Changes in emotion, such as depression, are associated with brain changes, and those changes can be associated with motor commands," Ellipsis's chief science officer, Elizabeth Shriberg, explained; those commands control "the apparatus that drives voice in speech." Ellipsis's software could have many applications. It might be used, for example, during routine doctor visits, like an annual checkup (with the patient's permission, of course). While the physician performs her exam, a recording could be sent to Ellipsis and the patient's speech analyzed so quickly that the doctor might receive a message before the end of the appointment, advising her to ask some questions about the patient's mood, or to refer the patient to a mental-health professional. The software might have picked up a hint of lethargy or slight slurring in the speech that the doctor missed.

I was holding out hope that some aspects of speech, such as irony or sarcasm, would defeat a computer. But Björn Schuller, a professor of artificial intelligence at Imperial College London and of "embedded intelligence" at the University of Augsburg, in Germany, told me that he has taught machines to spot sarcasm. He has them analyze linguistic content and tone of voice at the same time, which allows them to find the gaps between words and inflection that determine whether a speaker means the exact opposite of what she's said. He gives me an example: " Su ‑per," the sort of thing you might blurt out when you learn that your car will be in the shop for another week.

The natural next step after emotion detection, of course, will be emotion production: training artificially intelligent agents to generate approximations of emotions. Once computers have become virtuosic at breaking down the emotional components of our speech, it will be only a matter of time before they can reassemble them into credible performances of, say, empathy. Virtual assistants able to discern and react to their users' frame of mind could create a genuine-seeming sense of affinity, a bond that could be used for good or for ill.

Taniya Mishra looks forward to the possibility of such bonds. She fantasizes about a car to which she could rant at the end of the day about everything that had gone wrong-an automobile that is also an active listener. "A car is not going to zone out," she says. "A car is not going to say, 'I'm sorry, honey, I have to run and make dinner, I'll listen to your story later.' " Rather, with the focus possible only in a robot, the car would track her emotional state over time and observe, in a reassuring voice, that Mishra always feels this way on a particular day of the week. Or perhaps it would play the Pharrell song ("Happy," naturally) that has cheered her up in the past. At this point, it will no longer make sense to think of these devices as assistants. They will have become companions.

If you don't happen to work in the tech sector, you probably can't think about all the untapped potential in your Amazon Echo or Google Home without experiencing some misgivings. By now, most of us have grasped the dangers of allowing our most private information to be harvested, stored, and sold. We know how facial-recognition technologies have allowed authoritarian governments to spy on their own citizens; how companies disseminate and monetize our browsing habits, whereabouts, social-media interactions; how hackers can break into our home-security systems and nanny cams and steal their data or reprogram them for nefarious ends. Virtual assistants and ever smarter homes able to understand our physical and emotional states will open up new frontiers for mischief making. Despite the optimism of most of the engineers I've talked with, I must admit that I now keep the microphone on my iPhone turned off and my smart speakers unplugged when I don't plan to use them for a while.
Once our electronic servants become emotionally savvy, they could wield a lot of power over us.
But there are subtler effects to consider as well. Take something as innocent-seeming as frictionlessness. To Amazon's Toni Reid, it means convenience. To me, it summons up the image of a capitalist prison filled with consumers who have become dreamy captives of their every whim. (An image from another Pixar film comes to mind: the giant, babylike humans scooting around their spaceship in Wall-E.) In his Cassandra-esque book Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life, Adam Greenfield, an urbanist, frames frictionlessness as an existential threat: It is meant to eliminate thought from consumption, to "short-circuit the process of reflection that stands between one's recognition of a desire and its fulfillment via the market."

I fear other threats to our psychological well-being. A world populated by armies of sociable assistants could get very crowded. And noisy. It's hard to see how we'd protect those zones of silence in which we think original thoughts, do creative work, achieve flow. A companion is nice when you're feeling lonesome, but there's also something to be said for solitude.

And once our electronic servants become emotionally savvy? They could come to wield quite a lot of power over us, and even more over our children. In their subservient, helpful way, these emoting bots could spoil us rotten. They might be passive when they ought to object to our bad manners ("I don't deserve that!"). Programmed to keep the mood light, they might change the subject whenever dangerously intense feelings threaten to emerge, or flatter us in our ugliest moments. How do you program a bot to do the hard work of a true, human confidant, one who knows when what you really need is tough love?

Ultimately, virtual assistants could ease us into the kind of conformity L'Engle warned of. They will be the products of an emotion-labeling process that can't capture the protean complexity of human sentiment. Their "appropriate" responses will be canned, to one extent or another. We'll be in constant dialogue with voices that traffic in simulacra of feelings, rather than real ones. Children growing up surrounded by virtual companions might be especially likely to adopt this mass-produced interiority, winding up with a diminished capacity to name and understand their own intuitions. Like the Echo of Greek myth, the Echo Generation could lose the power of a certain kind of speech.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe our assistants will develop inner lives that are richer than ours. That's what happened in the first great work of art about virtual assistants, Spike Jonze's movie Her. "She" (the voice of Scarlett Johansson) shows her lonely, emotionally stunted human (Joaquin Phoenix) how to love. And then she leaves him, because human emotions are too limiting for so sophisticated an algorithm. Though he remains lonely, she has taught him to feel, and he begins to entertain the possibility of entering into a romantic relationship with his human neighbor.

But it is hard for me to envision even the densest artificial neural network approaching the depth of the character's sadness, let alone the fecundity of Jonze's imagination. It may be my own imagination that's limited, but I watch my teenage children clutch their smartphones wherever they go lest they be forced to endure a moment of boredom, and I wonder how much more dependent their children will be on devices that not only connect them with friends, but actually are friends-irresistibly upbeat and knowledgeable, a little insipid perhaps, but always available, usually helpful, and unflaggingly loyal, except when they're selling our secrets. When you stop and think about it, artificial intelligences are not what you want your children hanging around with all day long.

If I have learned anything in my years of therapy, it is that the human psyche defaults to shallowness. We cling to our denials. It's easier to pretend that deeper feelings don't exist, because, of course, a lot of them are painful. What better way to avoid all that unpleasantness than to keep company with emotive entities unencumbered by actual emotions? But feelings don't just go away like that. They have a way of making themselves known. I wonder how sweet my grandchildren's dreams will be.
This article appears in the November 2018 print edition with the headline "'Alexa, How Will You Change Us?'"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alexa's Most Dangerous Feature Can't Be Undone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The voice revolution has only just begun. Today, Alexa is a humble servant. Very soon, she could be much more-a teacher, a therapist, a confidant, an informant.

# data[].attributes.body
Asking an information question and an answer is given with evidence from the internet browser used on Apple products, Safari

# data[].attributes.body
Siri will also answer to small talk and simple conversational questions. These answers are closed and do not encourage the user to answer a question, therefore the conversation is very short lived.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Siri, another technological advancement that has made our lives drastically easier...or at least, it's designed to.

As per all apparent leaps in technology we use them for the menial and the most nonsensical things we can think of, who hasn't asked Siri to tell them a joke or that you love them?

Apple started a new dawn of the virtual-assistant when they combined the iPhone with a built-in voice assistant.

Although most do indeed use it as more of a tool to cheer them up, Siri is a godsend to those who use it correctly.

Siri allows you to book appointments, find up to the minute information on flights, films and traffic as well as being able to email Margret that photo of a cat you know she'd love.

Siri is as much an entrenched symbol of Apple as that piece of half eaten fruit itself.

Here we're going to look at 5 facts you probably didn't know about Siri.

A hacker's best friend!

Siri has unknowingly been used to bypass iOS security by granting access to the phone app.

From there you can use the phone to dial numbers, listen to saved voicemails, view and change contact information, access photos, use Twitter and login to email.

In 2013, Dany Lisiansky posted an instructional video on YouTube showing how to do this. As a result, Apple released iOS 7.0.2, patching this problem.

On 4 th April 2016, YouTuber "videosdebarraquito" uploaded a video showing a new security issue.

It shows that people can ask Siri on a locked iPhone to search for tweets and then use 3D Touch on an email address in the results to access contacts and photo gallery without ever needing to unlock the device.

AppleInsider say this particular issue only applies to iOS 9.3.1 on iPhone 6s and 6s Plus and of course Siri can be disabled on the lock screen under Settings.

Siri the TV star.

Siri has had many TV appearances since its birth and has been voiced by many different actors, including The Big Bang Theory, Criminal Minds, Boondocks and The Simpsons.

In The Big Bang Theory, Dr. Rajesh Koothrappali falls in love with his Siri, played by Becky O'Donohue.

His love affair dies when Raj, with his selective mutism, has a dream that he goes to meet Siri in the form of a real woman and can't speak to her.

In The Simpsons episode ' What Animated Women Want', Homer asks Siri for other options for a better voice-activated phone assistant, Siri responds by zapping him.

Siri has also appeared in Ant-Man during the scene where Ant-Man and Yellowjacket are fighting.

The original American Siri revealed!

Since 4 th October 2011 Susan Benett, from Atlanta, Georgia, has been in the pockets of millions of people across America.

Providing reminders, weather forecasts, restaurant recommendations and has been cursed, mocked and asked our weirdest questions.

Ms. Benett is the original American voice of Siri. Apple however has yet to officially confirm this but Ms. Bennett says she is.

An audio-forensics expert Ed Primeau, with over 30 year's experience, studied both voices and said he's 100% certain the two are the same and even had a colleague verify this.

Ms. Bennett's website also confirms she is indeed the official voice of Siri.

Siri's appearance on Android was so close!

Siri was initially released as an iOS app available in the App Store produced by Siri Inc's Adam Cheyer, Dag Kittlaus and Tom Gruber.

The company was acquired by Apple in 2010. Siri, Inc. had said that the software would be available for BlackBerry and Android devices but all efforts for non-Apple platforms were cancelled after Apple's purchase.

Following this announcement, so many knock-off, I mean completely independent variations, were released across the android platform such as Window's Cortana and LG's Genie.

Multi-lingual Siri doesn't understand accents.

Siri is used across the Apple range including the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Apple Watch and Apple TV.

It's available in around 20 languages across the platforms these include Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hebrew, Norwegian, Russian and Spanish.

The Apple TV however, is only available in 8 countries; Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Spain, UK and the US.

With all these languages supported, you'd assume voice recognition and accents would be a walk in the park for Siri, far from it.

In 2011, hordes of angry and bemused Scottish iPhone users were lost in translation all due to their accent, with my favorite being "can you dance with me?" becoming "Can you Dutch women"!

Even though Apple apparently tested it with a number of accents including Scottish, Welsh and Irish!

So there we have it, 5 odd facts you probably didn't know about Siri!

Now when you dig out your old iPhone 6, you can speak to Susan Bennett, and try out your best Scottish accent for some wonderful results.

Whatever you think of Siri you have to agree the potential benefits when used correctly are astounding.

Oh and remember, keep an eye out for her next cameo appearance in a cinema near you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Tell Me Some Facts About Siri" | The Fact Site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Siri, another technological advancement that has made our lives drastically easier...or at least, it's designed to. As per all apparent leaps in technology we use them for the menial and the most nonsensical things we can think of, who hasn't asked Siri to tell them a joke or that you love them?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook M, the text-based virtual assistant that used human workers to train an artificial intelligence system, is ending the human-assisted part of the service after two and a half years. The human-enhanced version of M, which was available through a bot on Facebook Messenger, only ever became available to about 2,000 people living in California. The final day of the M virtual assistant will be January 19th, Facebook said, and contractors who worked on it will be offered other jobs at the company.

First introduced in August 2015, aspects of the service will live on through M suggestions, which offers fully automated suggestions for payments, making plans, and sending stickers through Messenger. When it launched, Facebook described M as a "beta" and suggested the human-powered assistant would come to more users over time. But it never did. Upon shutting down the human-powered M, Facebook described it as an "experiment."

"We launched this project to learn what people needed and expected of an assistant, and we learned a lot," the company said in a statement. "We're taking these useful insights to power other AI projects at Facebook. We continue to be very pleased with the performance of M suggestions in Messenger, powered by our learnings from this experiment."

I got access to M in October 2015, and used the service only about three dozen times over its lifespan. It felt like an amazing resource to have at my disposal, and yet in practice I almost never knew what to do with it. In most cases, I used M only when I knew that doing so would save me from making a phone call - because M would be making it for me. When I mentioned this to Mark Zuckerberg in an interview, he responded, " I think that's probably not very different from other people."

That could speak to why Facebook had trouble making M more widely available. Fin, a new virtual assistant startup founded by a former Facebook executive that closely mirrors the M service, charges $1 per minute, with a minimum monthly expenditure of $120. Facebook lightly experimented with pushing recommendations to users through M. It asked me if I wanted to send flowers to anyone on Valentine's Day in 2016. It's possible to imagine a world where M was more successful at commerce and was able to take a cut of revenue, defraying some of the costs of maintaining an around-the-clock service.

But bot-based commerce has been slow to take off, as most people continue to prefer native apps and the web over sending text messages. In the meantime, the M project taught Facebook about the range of tasks that people would use a virtual assistant to complete, and Facebook automated the tasks that it could. Having free access to an on-call virtual assistant always seemed to be a little too good to be true. And so I'll miss having M around, though not quite as much as I would have imagined when I first got access to it.

Correction, 1:54 p.m.: This post has been updated to reflect that Fin charges $1 per minute to complete a task, with a two-hour monthly minimum to access the service.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook is shutting down M, its personal assistant service that combined humans and AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook M, the text-based virtual assistant that used human workers to train an artificial intelligence system, is ending the human-assisted part of the service after two and a half years. The human-enhanced version of M, which was available through a bot on Facebook Messenger, only ever became available to about 2,000 people living in California.

# data[].attributes.body
'Marcus anticipates that M will expand slowly over time, but that it will eventually reach everyone. As this happens, the array of tasks it performs will certainly grow. Facebook is, by design, rolling out its new assistant in a community in which the users are demographically similar to the M trainers who will be thinking up gifts for their spouses and fun vacation destinations for them' (Hempel, 2015).